Reading comprehension, not a strong suit?

They didn't just reference Amerika, and didn't just host it's editor/creator, they actively supplied it with the personal information of artists that had discovered the secret alt-right agenda and publicized it.
BIG DIFFERENCE.

I'm not interested enough in the Canada thing to investigate, I've spent hours on this extensive discussion, I have no need to spark another discussion on another politicized topic today just to fight over every statement and act, but I'm fairly convinced the video clip she showed included the actual promotion of violence and hatred, not just a person who is well known in certain circles for promoting them. If that's against the rules, it's against the rules. Even in the unlikely event it did just include her innocuously, if she is a well known alt-right extremist provocateur and it's against the rules to discuss extremists and their views, then it's against the rules. I find that silly and unproductive, but institutions have a right to be silly. Like Malcolm X, some people don't need their positions verbalized, their image alone can get their message across because it's so well known.

The issues with this....

The cost in energy to pump that water must be enormous. All for what? Does that really impress people? As said above, it would suck to be in any of those offices below, especially after the inevitable failure of the waterproofing.

Ian Malcolm: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

I can't recommend Malcolm's podcast, Revisionist History, highly enough!

On the chance your 'jokingly' isn't obvious, MLK, Ghandi and Mandela's causes ALL had support from those willing to use violence, aka better weapons would help.

Malcolm X would be the next most prominent figure beside MLK. Indian independence wasn't won with peaceful hunger strikes alone, and again lots of violence in South Africa.

Ghandi even bridged the gap to working alongside the effective army fighting for India's independence:
" I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier."

Speaking more to the point of America today, pretty much no civil war has been fought exclusively with civilians on one side, and the government, police, army and all other branches of the state united on the other. The reason being that if that kind of unity within the government against the civilian population exists, you ALREADY have tyranny.

In America, the example would be if a president or a particular political party decided to try for tyrannical over reach, would the American public be better equipped to resist that with or without guns? In civil war, guns give power to the majority of public opinion that would need to be there otherwise. In a nation with an unarmed public, whatever the majority of soldiers side with is likely gonna win. With an armed populace, the civilian opinion matters more.

I think it's an overall modest observation, and one that really doesn't in anyway make it obvious that the modest benefit is worth the costs. That is another matter, but you can't factually claim that there isn't a meaningful difference between an armed and unarmed population when facing civil war.

I'm completely with Maher on this one.

...But, perhaps to his dismay, this kinda also explains (notice the use of "explains" as opposed to "justifies") unacceptable further-back behavior, like having some degree of appreciation for Confederate soldiers and officers in the Civil War, slave ownership by founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson, etc. It is possible to respect positive contributions of people in the past without being required to turn a blind eye to their faults, even if those faults would be utterly disqualifying today.

Quoth Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly:

"Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and um, screaming." - Dr. Ian Malcolm

"Malcolm X Warning About Liberals and Multiculturalis "

Malcolm X does nothing of the sort. He warns about "...whites (specifically politicians) who call themselves Liberals". That's a significant departure from Liberalism, and whatever the shit "Liberal" means these days. It's also a departure that won't be clarified on CNN or Fox News.

And he's right; the GOP doesn't suffer any penalty for failing to give a f@#k about the poor, about African Americans, etc. They've taught their constituents to demand this indifference. The Democrats DO suffer a penalty, to a limited degree, and thus that brand of deceitful manipulation is common.

Here's the thing; both parties suck, because their bosses (big donors, corporations, the leisure class) suck.

Pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

@newtboy --

Yarr. I had a pretty long response typed up, and then accidentally clicked on a link and lost it.

So here's a short version:

I agree with you on pretty much everything, but "all statues and other monuments celebrating the insurrection should go" has some caveats for me.

Civic places like government buildings, city parks, etc.? Yeah, they should all go (including the State flags that incorporate the stars and bars). But museums (which you noted you are OK with), battlefields, and even a landmark or two like Stone Mountain I feel can be re-purposed so they aren't necessarily "celebrating the insurrection" so much as "reminding us of the evil that can exist in the hearts of men -- even men that some people respect".

Malcolm Reynolds in Firefly said "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another." Easier to remember that for Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and Stonewall Jackson, given that their roles in the Confederacy are pretty defining aspects of their legacies. But it remains true for some people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and many other founding fathers that were also slave owners, even though we often conveniently forget that aspect of their history.


--EDIT--
Oh, by the way, I love that Malcolm Reynolds quote from Firefly, and there's a rather similar one made by the Hound in the (leaked) S07E06 episode of Game of Thrones:
"Every lord I've ever known has been a cunt. Don't see why the Lord of Light should be any different."

Not as relevant as the other one, but I liked it.

*ban
Malcolm X
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWbNlw4jysA

*ban self link
jazoncarl posted video today
https://www.storeboard.com/jazon%20carl/videos/malcolm-x-onez-everywhere/221556
and
https://www.izlesene.com/video/onez-everywhere-malcolm-x-prod-by-swift-on-demand-lhhny/9819595

also http://serioussoundzz.ning.com/profile/jazoncarl

Malcolm McDowell as Barron Trump.

The internet delivers, again.

Check out this quote by Malcolm X, made in Paris, '64.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

What would Malcolm Reynolds Do?

Not if he keeps taking all those bit parts. He'll end up like the guy who played the dad in Malcolm in the Middle.

She's a little Malcolm Reynolds:
"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back."